EPTEDIT: the reason i'm posting this here is because that means I'm obligated to write the article and not slack off and not do it
[MSL] Power Underwhelming - Page 2
| Forum Index > News |
motbob
United States12546 Posts
EDIT: the reason i'm posting this here is because that means I'm obligated to write the article and not slack off and not do it | ||
|
sjon03
United States231 Posts
Unrelated, can someone explain what thumbing down a map does for the series? Is it if both players thumbs down a certain map, that map won't be played? Thanks in advance. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41973 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:17 Xxio wrote: I can't understand how people say giving a win is better than re-doing it. He could have won, good enough for me! let's just say he won. Rather than We don't know so let's do it again. Jaedong didn't win that game but they gave it to him anyways. He didn't draw it either. There's no option to return to the situation it was in. Your options are award win, award draw, award loss. You have to pick the one that most closely fits the situation. He was not drawing with Flash at the time of the blackout. | ||
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
 | ||
|
KwarK
United States41973 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:19 Plexa wrote: ... Rainbow vs July Rainbow cheeses July with some cute goon/reaver timing push disconnect game isnt over, regame occurs July rapes rainbow since his cheese is spent Fair? I'm not prepared to comment on that. However, this decision IS inconsistent with every other decision kespa has made as far as I am aware of. Hell, let's go back further - YellOw vs Xellos, it happened there too. About time they started getting their act together then. If they fail to disqualify someone for typing "ppp" when their monitor dies I won't be complaining and bringing up precedent either. | ||
|
SuperArc
Austria7781 Posts
| ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:20 sjon03 wrote: It seems Jaedong had a clear advantage at that point in the game, but I believe a straight loss would have a lesser effect on FlaSh's mentality for the next game. The thoughts of "what if?" in FlaSh's mind could have played a part in his Game 4 loss, but there is no way of ever truly knowing. I think no matter the outcome of Game 3, everyone can agree that the series would be better off without the power mishap. Unrelated, can someone explain what thumbing down a map does for the series? Is it if both players thumbs down a certain map, that map won't be played? Thanks in advance. A map which has been thumbs down will not be played twice. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7212 Posts
| ||
|
Scaramanga
Australia8090 Posts
| ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:20 motbob wrote: This isn't the SCOTUS. Who cares about Chill's "precedent?" Why should we worry about what has happened before as opposed to what the correct decision is right at this moment? To me, the correct decision is completely obvious, and once Baezzi's VOD of Game 3 finishes processing I'll make a long post with pictures talking about the overwhelming advantage that Jaedong had and the statistical basis for the argument against granting a regame. Precedent matters because it's a strong indication of what the community/players/referees have considered to be fair in similar situations in the past. We can look to those decisions to remove ourselves a bit from particularities of this situation which might bias us one way or another. Bottom line is: disconnects have usually been handled X way in the past, instead of Y way. This is good (but obviously not conclusive) evidence that X way is superior to Y way and more accurately reflects the community ethos/our conception of fairness. | ||
|
PoP
France15446 Posts
That's something KeSPA should have explicitly stated in their rules though: "Should any event occur that prevents a game from being completed the regular way, and provided the game is not in the early stages, the win will be handed to whoever had an advantage after a careful review by the referees. A draw will be decided if the judges cannot determine which player was ahead blah blah blah." | ||
|
29 fps
United States5720 Posts
| ||
|
J1.au
Australia3596 Posts
| ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:22 KwarK wrote: At least in that case the players knew what was going to happen. Part of having a good rule set is being able to interpret the result before the ref give his decision. There should be no surprises when that ref opens his/her mouth. That situation was dumb, but it was due to a shit ruleset. Everyone on KT expected regame because that's what has been done before - hence why they were so pissed when there wasn't one. Now if you want to argue that's a bad rule, fine, but since nothing had changed the ruling is justified. If they had called regame, hwaseung probably wouldn't have walked out (they would have been pissed though most likely) but they would understand the ruling because that's what's happened before. About time they started getting their act together then. If they fail to disqualify someone for typing "ppp" when their monitor dies I won't be complaining and bringing up precedent either. If you want to go and change the rules willy-nilly in the middle of the biggest final in history then what faith can player or coaches have in any KeSPA ruling? Hell, why have a ruleset to begin with. | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:23 JWD wrote: Precedent matters because it's a strong indication of what the community/players/referees have considered to be fair in similar situations in the past. We can look to those decisions to remove ourselves a bit from particularities of this situation which might bias us one way or another. Bottom line is: disconnects have usually been handled X way in the past, instead of Y way. This is good (but obviously not conclusive) evidence that X way is superior to Y way and more accurately reflects the community ethos/our conception of fairness. I think there is a point to be made for precedent. But I don't think this is it. The community's concept of fairness had no input into kespa's decision making in the past. Precedent is important because regardless of whether individual decisions are fair... at least the same policy is being implemented to everybody equally. At the same time, as Kwark says.. Kespa have made some terrible decisions in the past and it's about time they got their act together. | ||
|
SuperArc
Austria7781 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:26 Plexa wrote: At least in that case the players knew what was going to happen. Part of having a good rule set is being able to interpret the result before the ref give his decision. There should be no surprises when that ref opens his/her mouth. That situation was dumb, but it was due to a shit ruleset. Everyone on KT expected regame because that's what has been done before. If they had called regame, hwaseung probably wouldn't have walked out (they would have been pissed though most likely) but they would understand the ruling because that's what's happened before. Now if you want to go and change the rules willy-nilly in the middle of the biggest final in history then what faith can player or coaches have in any KeSPA ruling? Hell, why have a ruleset to begin with. Someone said accoring Kespa rules if something like this happens the refs will have to decide the winner. So they didnt just change the rule on the fly | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 23 2010 23:28 SuperArc wrote: Then they must be deciding what constitutes over differently than before. Someone said accoring Kespa rules if something like this happens the refs will have to decide the winner. So they didnt just change the rule on the fly | ||
| ||
